[dickiegera]

---

Is this the correct bid here?
If so
Is it the best bid?

Thank you

[helene_t]

I will assume that 1♠ shows 5+ cards since otherwise the question is moot.

I am not so sure if 3♥ is good because although I do have shortness in hearts, I have only three trumps all of which are honours and having to ruff with those cards may well cost trump losers.

In other words, if partner has a heart stopper it will be a useful card and I don't want to give him the impression that it isn't.

So I prefer a more generic raise. 3♠ if that is allowed on a 3-card suit which I believe it should since otherwise the 2♥ cuebid gets overloaded.

[billw55]

Helene makes much sense as usual.

As an alternative, I consider "patterning out" starting with 2♦. After upgrading for the fit I think the hand is just strong enough for this.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-September-23, 08:19, said:

I will assume that 1♠ shows 5+ cards since otherwise the question is moot.

Is it? It is still opener's turn.

Of course maybe partner of OP has forced him to play support doubles...

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-23, 08:48, said:

Of course maybe partner of OP has forced him to play support doubles...

???

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2015-September-23, 08:52, said:

???

Then if 1♠ shows 4 he can double.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-23, 08:48, said:

Is it? It is still opener's turn.

Of course maybe partner of OP has forced him to play support doubles...

Look again - there was no intervening bid.

[hrothgar]

Hand seems way too weak for 2♦ and you need another trump for 3♥

I think that you are pretty much forced to make a 2♥ cue bid.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2015-September-23, 09:23, said:

Look again - there was no intervening bid.

LOL!

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2015-September-23, 09:40, said:

Hand seems way too weak for 2♦ and you need another trump for 3♥

I think that you are pretty much forced to make a 2♥ cue bid.

Hmm, really? Three aces, three tens, three honors in partner's suit, singleton in opponent's? I mean I understand if you still think it is not strong enough, but "way too weak" seems like an overstatement.

That said, I think 2♥ is a perfectly good choice. I'll remember this example if we are ever partners

[mikeh]

hrothgar, on 2015-September-23, 09:40, said:

Hand seems way too weak for 2♦ and you need another trump for 3♥

I think that you are pretty much forced to make a 2♥ cue bid.

2♥ would typically be taken as gf, with doubt as to whether we are doing this based on a powerhouse with clubs or a powerhouse with spades....responder makes the cheapest descriptive call and awaits clarification.

Thus 2♥ is stronger than the lower limit for 2♦. 2♦, being a reverse, is essentially unlimited on the upper end, in context, but is not, in itself, a game force action.

It therefore makes no sense to argue that the hand is too weak for a reverse but strong enough for a cuebid, at least in normal bridge.

As it happens, I am content with the reverse, since I have wonderful controls and the knowledge that partner holds 5+ spades is reason to make the upgrade. Indeed, I suspect that many players would cheerfully reverse had the auction been uncontested, even tho then partner promises only 4+ spades.

The splinter is flat out wrong...it promises 4 trump even if it is only invitational or better.

[neilkaz]

I am happy to reverse 2♦ due to the playing strength of this hand opposite pd's 1♠ bid.

[dickiegera]

mikeh, on 2015-September-23, 13:18, said:

2♥ would typically be taken as gf, with doubt as to whether we are doing this based on a powerhouse with clubs or a powerhouse with spades....responder makes the cheapest descriptive call and awaits clarification.

Thus 2♥ is stronger than the lower limit for 2♦. 2♦, being a reverse, is essentially unlimited on the upper end, in context, but is not, in itself, a game force action.

It therefore makes no sense to argue that the hand is too weak for a reverse but strong enough for a cuebid, at least in normal bridge.

As it happens, I am content with the reverse, since I have wonderful controls and the knowledge that partner holds 5+ spades is reason to make the upgrade. Indeed, I suspect that many players would cheerfully reverse had the auction been uncontested, even tho then partner promises only 4+ spades.

The splinter is flat out wrong...it promises 4 trump even if it is only invitational or better.

1♠ promises 5 Spades. We would neg double with only 4 spades

[mikeh]

dickiegera, on 2015-September-23, 15:10, said:

1♠ promises 5 Spades. We would neg double with only 4 spades

I knew that and expressly gave that as a reason for reversing. If you meant that splintering is ok with 3, because partner promised 5+, I disagree with you. As an easy example: consider holding AJx x Kxxx Axxxx and partner opened 1♠, showing 5+. Few, if any, would support a splinter on this, even tho we are known to hold an 8 card fit or better. Make it AJxx x Kxxx Axxx, and splintering would get a lot of support in any poll (unless it was felt to be too strong).

[dickiegera]

mikeh, on 2015-September-23, 15:48, said:

I knew that and expressly gave that as a reason for reversing. If you meant that splintering is ok with 3, because partner promised 5+, I disagree with you. As an easy example: consider holding AJx x Kxxx Axxxx and partner opened 1♠, showing 5+. Few, if any, would support a splinter on this, even tho we are known to hold an 8 card fit or better. Make it AJxx x Kxxx Axxx, and splintering would get a lot of support in any poll (unless it was felt to be too strong).

I take it that you would suggest a 2♦ reverse , not a 3♠ bid

I understand that you need 4 spades for the splinter.

Thank you for your time and imput

[mikeh]

dickiegera, on 2015-September-23, 16:09, said:

I take it that you would suggest a 2♦ reverse , not a 3♠ bid

I understand that you need 4 spades for the splinter.

Thank you for your time and imput

A reverse is the start of an accurate description since we intend to bid spades next, which would convey a hand with significant extras, 5+ clubs, 4 diamonds, and (unless partner rebids spades himself) 3 spades...usually 3=1=4=5 but possibly 3=0=4=6.

I do think that in these forums, some players tend to focus on bidding decisions from the perspective that they are in charge of the auction. Here, for example, any spade raise means that we have set spades as trump, while telling partner very little about our shape. Not only is our shape likely to be relevant to partner, but we may not in fact belong in spades (tho here I think we probably do).

So it is a good start on the path to allowing partner to decide where we ought to play. There is also the slight chance that diamonds will play better than spades. This is unlikely, if only because the opps have not bounced in hearts, so partner rates to have 8+ major suit cards, but it is not impossible, and it should cost nothing to explore the issue...we can always get back to spades later.

[fourdad]

neilkaz, on 2015-September-23, 13:37, said:

I am happy to reverse 2♦ due to the playing strength of this hand opposite pd's 1♠ bid.

As am I. The point is, as previously mentioned, does 1♠ show 4 or 5 by agreement? 2♦ covers both and I consider the hand strong enough for a reverse.

[zillahandp]

Whether or not 1s shows five (dont see how it can, whatts wrong with 3d, a reverse, we have the strength and p can enquire about hts rebid soades with five or raise either minor seems simple

[zillahandp]

Sorry folks 2diamonds not 3.

[fourdad]

zillahandp, on 2015-September-24, 13:30, said:

Whether or not 1s shows five (dont see how it can, whatts wrong with 3d, a reverse, we have the strength and p can enquire about hts rebid soades with five or raise either minor seems simple

because 3d is not a reverse. It is a jump shift.